9 ms·

I think it's mostly an objection to authoritarianism, to intolerance under the guise of tolerance, and specifically to the idea that there is a right to not be

I think it's mostly an objection to authoritarianism, to intolerance under the guise of tolerance, and specifically to the idea that there is a right to not be offended, which implies the right of anyone to prevent speech simply by declaring that they are offended by it, which is seen as a major danger to society and in particular to minorities who don't have the luck of being recognized as a protected class by those who push for these CoCs. Or to put it more succinctly: People see a bait and switch. The superficial language doesn't really seem all that objectionable, but if you look into the ideology behind it, you might find they have a very specific idea of what "don't be an asshole" means that maybe doesn't quite match what you'd expect.

crispyambulance 8y ago
> you might find they have a very specific idea of what "don't be an asshole" means that maybe doesn't quite match what you'd expect. I think that's a compelling reason to be skeptical of CoC's but I can't come up with an example where I would be surprised at what "don't be an asshole" actually means to the anyone that wrote the CoC's that seem rather common.
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  Being more than superficially religious would qualify. For example, the statement "I support traditional marriage and think it makes for a stronger society". There are lots of people who would scream their heads off in public at someone for simply saying that. There's quite a few examples I can think of...
- VonGallifrey 8y ago
  Many of the CoC's I have read specifically allow Racism against specific targets and allow sexism against specific targets. In veiled language off course, but it is still there. Even when that stuff isn't there it will be misused to target political "opponents" as we have already seen starting with the Linux CoC.
  - crispyambulance 8y ago
    There will always be some people looking to take advantage of "the rules". For some, that means finding bizarre loopholes far outside any reasonable intention of the rules. For others, it means attempting to enforce the rules with such rigidity that almost anything can be seen as a violation. I think a healthy community will realize that it is not their rules that makes them resilient, but rather their ability to use sound judgement and be flexible about problems and solutions. Linux will not be destroyed by a CoC that tries to be more inclusive even if there are attempts at abusing that CoC.
    - VonGallifrey 8y ago
      Why have a CoC then at all? If you know that it is not the rules that make them resilient then why make them at all. All they serve to do is giving ways to exclude people based on Loopholes and overly strict interpretation of said rules. If the leadership interpreting those rules are reasonable then they wouldn't need these rules in the first place, if they are not reasonable then the rules are useless. Especially since CoC are most often applied in a very Hypocritical way. The CoC states "Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences" which is however only true if you have one of the approved viewpoints. Which we are seeing right now with the Linux CoC. Of course no one does anything about all the slanderous accusations that get made to oust someone with the CoC even though those accusations themselves are violating the CoC. It is also especially worrisome that these pushes for CoC or language policing come mostly from the outside and try to dictate the rules you need to follow and the rules that you need to make people in your project follow.
      - crispyambulance 8y ago
        The thing is Linus HIMSELF has admitted that there is a problem and that he was a part of the problem. He has not only signed off on the CoC, but has also stepped down for a while. Like I said, the CoC is an effort to address things that have been going wrong in certain communities-- like Linux, Stackoverflow, and some conferences. If everything were A-OK, there would be no need for them.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  Well, I guess it starts even in the CoC itself it you read it closely? For example, it says "Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: The use of sexualized language or imagery [...]". That is codifying a very specific value, namely one of sex negativity. If you are sex positive, you are at risk of being labeled an asshole for that. (And mind you, that quote continues "[...] and unwelcome sexual attention or advances", so it is clearly in addition to what could be reasonably considered a neutral "respect others' personal boundaries" sort of "don't be an asshole"). Then, there is this whole problem of not considering people who have deficiencies of sorts with regards to social interaction, and it seems to me that that is very much part of the ideology. Try to read the kernel CoC from the viewpoint of an autist, and try to reflect on how included you feel from that perspective when you are essentially told "because we want to have a welcoming environment for everyone, we shun people like you". And more broadly, not necessarily directly tied to the specific authors (I just don't know the specific authors well enough to be sure), occurrences like this come to my mind: https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/21/kpfa-cancels-richard-dawkins-speech-tweets-islam https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/21/kpfa-cancels-richard... "Inappropriate" and "offensive" are so subjective that you could argue the "code" doesn't really codify anything, it just is a tool to use and to interpret as you see fit if you have the power to do so, while claiming that it's somehow a more objective judgement that you arrive at based on "rules that have to be followed".
  - pseudalopex 8y ago
    Someone can be "sex positive" and believe that a public global all-ages quasi-professional environment isn't the place for it. Which parts of the code do you think are unwelcoming to people with autism? Most that I know are neutral about it or are pleased that neurotypicals have started to recognize the benefits of explicit rules. I know of a couple of organizations where someone on the spectrum led the adoption of a similar code.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      > Someone can be "sex positive" and believe that a public global all-ages quasi-professional environment isn't the place for it. Well, yeah, sure. But someone else can be sex positive and feel like using sexualized language, can't they? I mean, I am obviously not saying that the CoC should say that everyone should be forced to use sexualized language. And the fact that you can be a sex positive person and still feel like sexual things are more of a personal thing for you, say, doesn't change the fact that banning people from using sexualized language is sex negative, does it? Some sex positive people feel like anal sex isn't their thing. Making a law against anal sex is still sex negative, isn't it? If you don't feel like using sexualized language, sure, more power to you as far as you expressing yourself is concerned. And really, as far as expressing myself publicly I'd generally be among those, it's not really my thing, at least not currently. What I object to is the authoritarian style of enforcing a particular set of values that have no direct relation to the goal of the project. And even moreso if it's done supposedly in the name of "being more inclusive". If you are suggesting that someone could be sex positive and think that sexualized language should be banned in a "public global all-ages quasi-professional environment", really, I don't think so. Sex positivism in a nutshell is the view that there is nothing bad or shameful about sex per se. It's a thing many people do and enjoy, just as many people do and enjoy eating ice cream (and others don't, and that's fine, too). If that's your view, I don't really see how you could go from there to supporting a ban on using related language, pretty much no matter what the context. Either you think sex should be a taboo or you don't!? > Which parts of the code do you think are unwelcoming to people with autism? Most that I know are neutral about it or are pleased that neurotypicals have started to recognize the benefits of explicit rules. I know of a couple of organizations where someone on the spectrum led the adoption of a similar code. Do they prefer rules over no rules or explicit rules over implicit rules? If there is a rule that is enforced against you anyway, it's probably better to have it spelled out explicitly (than to be surprised by the enforcement of a rule you hadn't picked up on). But that does not justify introducing any particular new rule, only writing down what's already there anyway. And even then writing down what's already there does not justify those rules, it at best creates the opportunity to reflect on the appropriateness of those rules, and to possibly throw some of them out for good. I would think the objection is to being held accountable to rules they aren't aware of, not so much to not having rules. Also, I'd be curious how similar that code really was. For example, "other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful" is very much the opposite of "explicit". It's so vague that if you think about it you realize there isn't actually any rule there. The only thing that's really there is the "rule" that the maintainer gets to decide the actual rules on the spot. Edit: As for something not actually being a rule, I think this is a good test: Could you possibly use it to defend yourself against an accusation? No matter what you did, you could never justify your behaviour by saying "What I did was not deemed inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful by the maintainer(s)".

crispyambulance 8y ago

> you might find they have a very specific idea of what "don't be an asshole" means that maybe doesn't quite match what you'd expect. I think that's a compelling reason to be skeptical of CoC's but I can't come up with an example where I would be surprised at what "don't be an asshole" actually means to the anyone that wrote the CoC's that seem rather common.

brobdingnagians 8y ago
Being more than superficially religious would qualify. For example, the statement "I support traditional marriage and think it makes for a stronger society". There are lots of people who would scream their heads off in public at someone for simply saying that. There's quite a few examples I can think of...
VonGallifrey 8y ago
Many of the CoC's I have read specifically allow Racism against specific targets and allow sexism against specific targets. In veiled language off course, but it is still there. Even when that stuff isn't there it will be misused to target political "opponents" as we have already seen starting with the Linux CoC.
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  There will always be some people looking to take advantage of "the rules". For some, that means finding bizarre loopholes far outside any reasonable intention of the rules. For others, it means attempting to enforce the rules with such rigidity that almost anything can be seen as a violation. I think a healthy community will realize that it is not their rules that makes them resilient, but rather their ability to use sound judgement and be flexible about problems and solutions. Linux will not be destroyed by a CoC that tries to be more inclusive even if there are attempts at abusing that CoC.
  - VonGallifrey 8y ago
    Why have a CoC then at all? If you know that it is not the rules that make them resilient then why make them at all. All they serve to do is giving ways to exclude people based on Loopholes and overly strict interpretation of said rules. If the leadership interpreting those rules are reasonable then they wouldn't need these rules in the first place, if they are not reasonable then the rules are useless. Especially since CoC are most often applied in a very Hypocritical way. The CoC states "Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences" which is however only true if you have one of the approved viewpoints. Which we are seeing right now with the Linux CoC. Of course no one does anything about all the slanderous accusations that get made to oust someone with the CoC even though those accusations themselves are violating the CoC. It is also especially worrisome that these pushes for CoC or language policing come mostly from the outside and try to dictate the rules you need to follow and the rules that you need to make people in your project follow.
    - crispyambulance 8y ago
      The thing is Linus HIMSELF has admitted that there is a problem and that he was a part of the problem. He has not only signed off on the CoC, but has also stepped down for a while. Like I said, the CoC is an effort to address things that have been going wrong in certain communities-- like Linux, Stackoverflow, and some conferences. If everything were A-OK, there would be no need for them.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
Well, I guess it starts even in the CoC itself it you read it closely? For example, it says "Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: The use of sexualized language or imagery [...]". That is codifying a very specific value, namely one of sex negativity. If you are sex positive, you are at risk of being labeled an asshole for that. (And mind you, that quote continues "[...] and unwelcome sexual attention or advances", so it is clearly in addition to what could be reasonably considered a neutral "respect others' personal boundaries" sort of "don't be an asshole"). Then, there is this whole problem of not considering people who have deficiencies of sorts with regards to social interaction, and it seems to me that that is very much part of the ideology. Try to read the kernel CoC from the viewpoint of an autist, and try to reflect on how included you feel from that perspective when you are essentially told "because we want to have a welcoming environment for everyone, we shun people like you". And more broadly, not necessarily directly tied to the specific authors (I just don't know the specific authors well enough to be sure), occurrences like this come to my mind: https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/21/kpfa-cancels-richard-dawkins-speech-tweets-islam https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/21/kpfa-cancels-richard... "Inappropriate" and "offensive" are so subjective that you could argue the "code" doesn't really codify anything, it just is a tool to use and to interpret as you see fit if you have the power to do so, while claiming that it's somehow a more objective judgement that you arrive at based on "rules that have to be followed".
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  Someone can be "sex positive" and believe that a public global all-ages quasi-professional environment isn't the place for it. Which parts of the code do you think are unwelcoming to people with autism? Most that I know are neutral about it or are pleased that neurotypicals have started to recognize the benefits of explicit rules. I know of a couple of organizations where someone on the spectrum led the adoption of a similar code.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > Someone can be "sex positive" and believe that a public global all-ages quasi-professional environment isn't the place for it. Well, yeah, sure. But someone else can be sex positive and feel like using sexualized language, can't they? I mean, I am obviously not saying that the CoC should say that everyone should be forced to use sexualized language. And the fact that you can be a sex positive person and still feel like sexual things are more of a personal thing for you, say, doesn't change the fact that banning people from using sexualized language is sex negative, does it? Some sex positive people feel like anal sex isn't their thing. Making a law against anal sex is still sex negative, isn't it? If you don't feel like using sexualized language, sure, more power to you as far as you expressing yourself is concerned. And really, as far as expressing myself publicly I'd generally be among those, it's not really my thing, at least not currently. What I object to is the authoritarian style of enforcing a particular set of values that have no direct relation to the goal of the project. And even moreso if it's done supposedly in the name of "being more inclusive". If you are suggesting that someone could be sex positive and think that sexualized language should be banned in a "public global all-ages quasi-professional environment", really, I don't think so. Sex positivism in a nutshell is the view that there is nothing bad or shameful about sex per se. It's a thing many people do and enjoy, just as many people do and enjoy eating ice cream (and others don't, and that's fine, too). If that's your view, I don't really see how you could go from there to supporting a ban on using related language, pretty much no matter what the context. Either you think sex should be a taboo or you don't!? > Which parts of the code do you think are unwelcoming to people with autism? Most that I know are neutral about it or are pleased that neurotypicals have started to recognize the benefits of explicit rules. I know of a couple of organizations where someone on the spectrum led the adoption of a similar code. Do they prefer rules over no rules or explicit rules over implicit rules? If there is a rule that is enforced against you anyway, it's probably better to have it spelled out explicitly (than to be surprised by the enforcement of a rule you hadn't picked up on). But that does not justify introducing any particular new rule, only writing down what's already there anyway. And even then writing down what's already there does not justify those rules, it at best creates the opportunity to reflect on the appropriateness of those rules, and to possibly throw some of them out for good. I would think the objection is to being held accountable to rules they aren't aware of, not so much to not having rules. Also, I'd be curious how similar that code really was. For example, "other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful" is very much the opposite of "explicit". It's so vague that if you think about it you realize there isn't actually any rule there. The only thing that's really there is the "rule" that the maintainer gets to decide the actual rules on the spot. Edit: As for something not actually being a rule, I think this is a good test: Could you possibly use it to defend yourself against an accusation? No matter what you did, you could never justify your behaviour by saying "What I did was not deemed inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful by the maintainer(s)".